Cornell University School of Hotel Administration

The Scholarly Commons

Articles and Chapters School of Hotel Administration Collection

12-1995

A Positioning Analysis of Hotel Brands - Based on

Travel-Manager Perceptions
Chekitan S. Dev
Cornell University School of Hotel Administration, csd5@cornell.edu

Michael S. Morgan
Cornell University

Stowe Shoemaker
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles

Part of the Hospitality Administration and Management Commons, Marketing Commons, and
the Tourism and Travel Commons

Recommended Citation
Dev, C. S., Morgan, M. S., & Shoemaker, S. (1995). A positioning analysis of hotel brands - Based on travel-manager perceptions.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36(6). 48-55. doi:10.1016/0010-8804(96)81003-2

This Article or Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Hotel Administration Collection at The Scholarly Commons. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters by an authorized administrator of The Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact
hlmdigital@cornell.edu.
A Positioning Analysis of Hotel Brands - Based on Travel-Manager
Perceptions
Abstract
A hotel brands unique selling propositionthe argument it makes to convince travelers to book its hotels
instead of someone elses propertiesis known as its market position. The position comprises the bundle of
attributes that the hotel offers in an effort to meet guests wants and needs.

Keywords
hotel industry, market share, marketing, competitive strategy, branding

Disciplines
Hospitality Administration and Management | Marketing | Tourism and Travel

Comments
Required Publisher Statement
Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

This article or chapter is available at The Scholarly Commons: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/783

A Positioning
Analysis of
Hotel Brands- Hotels attempt to establish a unique market position in

an effort to boost market share. In the end, however,

Based on Travel-Manager Perceptions position is in the eye of the customer. Identifying that

position is an essential element in determining the

effectiveness of a hotels marketing strategy.

by Chekitan S. Dev,
Michael S. Morgan, and
Stowe Shoemaker

A hotel brands unique selling

proposition the argument it makes
to convince travelers to book its
hotels instead of someone elses
properties is known as its market
position. The position comprises the
bundle of attributes that the hotel
offers in an effort to meet guests
wants and needs.
Chekitan S. Dev, Ph.D. , is an
associate professor of strategic marketing
and Michael S. Morgan, Ph.D., is an
assistant professor of marketing at the
Cornell University School of Hotel
Administration. Stowe Shoemaker,
Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the
William F. Harrah College of Hotel
Administration at the University of
NevadaLas Vegas.
1995, C ornell University
 A hotel brands position can be
viewed from two perspectives, that
of the brands management and that
of the guests. The brands manage
m ent must have a firm concept of
the hotels intended position, and its
promotional efforts must articulate
not only what the brand offers but
how its offerings are distinct from
those of other brands.
In the final analysis, however, a
brands position is determ ined by its
customers. A hotel company might
offer a luxury-level package of ser
vices and amenities in an effort to
attract business travelers, for in
stance. If the resulting room rate is
higher than corporate travel manag
ers are willing to pay, that brand is
in reality not positioned for the bulk
o f business travelers. Instead it may
attract only those who are price
insensitive, or it may attract luxury-
oriented leisure guests. In another
example, if a hotel has positioned
itself as the most effective and effi
cient conference hotel in the mar
ket, customers will expect their
meetings to occur flawlessly. Should
that not occur, the hotels posi
tion from the customers point of
view will in reality be an okay
conference hotel or worse.
Custom ers perceptions of a hotel
brands position can be subdivided
into specific attributes that can, in
turn, be depicted graphically on
coordinate axes known as perceptual
maps. Likewise, the position of an
individual hotel or brand can be
graphed, to allow a comparison of
the brands position in relation to
those of competitors and to dem on
strate any changes in the brands
position over time. In this article,
we demonstrate how such a percep
tual map can show the way a hotel
brands customers view the chain
and, further, how that map can assist
in determ ining a hotels competitive
set. The maps we discuss were con
structed using data drawn from sur
veys of travel managers and travel
agents published in 1990, 1991, and
1992.
Positioning
Each hotel booking represents a
purchase decision that is based on
the customers perception of the
attributes represented by that brand.
In the case of corporate travel of
fices, the customer is the person
who makes the booking, regardless
of who actually stays at the hotel.
Those attributes are both tangible
(the physical property) and intan
gible (services offered).1 Typical
attributes might include a low price,
convenient location, a frequent-
traveler program, or a helpful and
courteous staff. The package of at
tributes offered by the brand consti
tutes its market position, which is
usually viewed in relation to other
brands. Brands that have similar
bundles of attributes are considered
to be in the same competitive set.2
The part of the position that de
rives directly from the products
physical attributes is its objective
position.3 The fact is that the Four
Seasons offers the most services of
any hotel brand, AmeriSuites offers a
suite at a price often charged by
conventional m id-price competi
tors,4 and M otel 6 offers consistent,
low-cost rooms.
The other portion of the position
is subjective, involving peoples per
ceptions of a brand or individual
propertys intangible attributes.
These can only be experienced dur
ing the hotel stay. As R obert Lewis
succinctly put it, you cannot take a
1 See: G. Lynn Shostack, Breaking Free from
Product Marketing Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41
(April 1977), pp. 73-80.
2 Positioning by attribute is the most common
but not the only strategy. See: David A. Aaker,
Positioning Your Product, Business Horizons,
May-June 1982, pp. 5662.
3 Robert C. Lewis, Advertising Your H otels
Position, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra see: Robert C. Lewis, The Market Position:
tion Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 2 (August 1990), p. 85. Mapping Guests Perceptions o f Hotel Opera
4 Mark Harris, Economical Positioning,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2 (August 1988), p. 97.
hotel stay hom e to use.5 Hyatt H o
tels, for example, positioned itself in
the 1980s as operating hotels whose
dramatic architecture created an
exciting hotel stay.
Most of a hotels attributes are
intangible, making it difficult for a
customer to distinguish among com
petitive offerings.6 To enable cus
tomers to make that distinction,
marketers attempt to establish a po
sition using brand names and specific
images or slogans that signify some
of the intangible attributes. Lewis
suggested that a successful position
comprises three elements: it differ
entiates the brand; it locates the
brand on specific benefit dimen
sions, and it creates an image.7 Lewis
continued: To combine these ele
ments, the positioning statement
should be designed to create an im
age reflecting the perception of the
hotel that management wishes its
target market to hold and reflecting
promises on which the brand can
deliver and make good. The subtext
of this definition is that the key to a
hotels position is in how it is viewed
by the customer.
Through market research hote
liers can determine which attributes
travelers (or travel managers) con
sider in choosing a brand and how
travelers view a hotel brand in light
of those attributes.8 From that infor
mation, the researcher can apply
discriminant analysis to develop a
map of the brands position as
seen by its customers.9 In assessing
5 Lewis, p. 87.
6 See: John M. Rathmell, Marketing in the Service
Sector (Cambridge, MA: Winthrop, 1974).
7 Robert C. Lewis, The Positioning Statement
for Hotels, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adminis
tration Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 1 (May 1981), p. 53.
8 For example, see: Paul E. Green and Yoram
Wind, N ew Ways to Measure Consumers
Judgments, Harvard Business Review, July-August
1975, pp. 107-115.
9 For an explanation of discriminant analysis,
tions, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2 (August 1985),
pp. 88-89.
those attributes, researchers must be Data for the study described in food, and price-value. See Exhibit 1
careful to distinguish the determ i this article were drawn from sum for the complete list of attributes
nant attributes (those that actually mary statistics published in the used to create perceptual maps for
cause a purchase) from salient at yearly U.S. Hotel Systems Survey the upscale segment. The attributes
tributes (those that are top-of-the- for 1989, 1990, and 1991 by Busi respondents used to rate the brands
mind but may not actually distin ness Travel News. The survey com varied for each segment simply be
guish the hotel). In terms of piles the views of corporate travel cause different attributes apply to
positioning, the distinction between managers and business travel agents each segment. The graph in Exhibit
determ inant and salient attributes opinions of the nations hotel brands 1 shows the relative importance of
might not be so keenly noticed, on a variety of attributes. each of the attributes for this
because both contribute to the view sample.
that a customer has of a given Unusual Situation The surveys sampling m ethod
brands position. It is possible, At the time our data were compiled remained consistent over the three-
however, to establish positioning the hotel industry was at the bottom year period. The magazines re
maps based solely on determ inant of its worst shakeout in at least two searchers mailed a questionnaire to
attributes.10 decades. In 1991 the U.S. hotel approximately 7,500 randomly se
industrys average occupancy lected subscribers who were busi
Business Travelers dropped to 60.8 percent, a 20-year ness travel managers and travel
Different classes of travelers use low.14 Moreover, many hotels were agents focusing on business ac
different attributes to determine in the red. An Arthur Andersen counts. O ne m onth after the first
their view of a hotel brands posi study revealed that U S. hotels in mailing, the questionnaire was sent
tion. Moreover, even when they use 1990 lost some $5.5 billion and again to nonrespondents. There was
the same attributes, various classes another $2.7 billion in 1991.15 no further followup. This m ethod
of travelers assign different weights Coopers and Lybrand estimated that ology obtained the following re
to those attributes. A principal point 60 percent of hotels were operating sponse percentages: 23 percent in
of differentiation among travelers is at a loss in m id-1992. Data from 1990, 21.4 percent in 1991, and
whether they are traveling on busi Smith Travel Research suggested 19.2 percent in 1992. The Business
ness or for pleasure.11 This study that increases in hotels A D R lagged Travel News researchers made no
concerns itself with hotel brands the consumer price index from effort to control for nonresponse
positions among business travelers. 1987 to 1991.16 It was well-known bias, and the findings represent only
As a proxy for the travelers them that the supply of new hotel rooms the opinions of those who answered
selves, we used data from corporate was vastly outstripping demand. the questionnaire. Moreover, sum
travel managers and travel agents Because this period represented a mary characteristics of those who
whose clients are chiefly business dynamic environment for the indus responded are unavailable. Conse
travelers. These travel planners are try, we chose it for our study. quently, any projections to the in
growing in importance as a distribu The hotel brands were divided a dustry at large should be made with
tion channel.12 At the time of our priori by Business Travel News into caution. Nevertheless, the data pro
study some observers estimated that five market segments: luxury, up vide a positioning map of several
these channels delivered 25 percent scale, m id-price, economy, and all chains based on the perceptions of
of all hotel-room reservations. That suite. Due to the num ber of hotel these travel managers and agents.17
percentage is higher for upscale brands under consideration, each Respondents rating each hotel
hotels than for mid-market and respondent rated hotel chains in brand were qualified in the follow
economy properties. only one or two segments. The ing way. They were asked whether
attributes used included ease of they had booked their clients into a
" Lewis (1985), p. 93.
arranging individual travel, timely property affiliated with a given ho
11 For a specific analysis o f the differences in commission payment, quality of tel brand in the previous 12 months.
attributes applied by business and pleasure A respondents attribute ratings for
travelers, see: R o b e rt CL Lewis, P redicting
M otel C h o ice:T h e Factors U nderlying Percep
13 Business Travel News, January 29, 1990,
pp. 3 6-4 1 ; January 28, 1991, pp. 1319; and
that brand were tabulated only if the
tion, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Adm inistration January 27, 1992, pp. 15-18. respondent answered this question
Quarterly, Vol. 25, N o. 4 (February 1985), p. 91. 14 Pauline Yoshihashi, Flotel R ecovery W ill Be
12 See: Russell A. Bell, C orp o rate Travel- a Late A rrival, Wall Street Journal, July 27, 1992, 17 T he data used for this study w ere selected to
M anagem ent Trends, Cornell H otel and Restau p. B1. illustrate the perceptual-m apping m eth od and
rant Adm inistration Quarterly, Vol. 34, N o. 2 (April 13 Ibid. should n ot be used for strategic in terpretation o f
1993), pp. 30-39. u> Ibid. the upscale lodging m arket.
 Exhibit 1
Relative importance of hotel attributes (this study):
Upscale tier, 1990-1992
A Quality of food
B Physical apperanace,
In-room amenities
C Helpful, courteous staff
D Facilities for non-resort meetings
E Overall price value
F Overall average rating,
Facilities for resort meetings
G Ease in arranging individual
travel
H Ease in arranging group travel
Timely commission payments
Frequent-traveler programs
in the affirmative. The consequence
of this m ethodology is that the
sample size from brand to brand in
the same years survey shows consid
erable variation.
As a final note on the data, the
ratings used were means for each
hotel brand. We attempted to obtain
the entire data set but it was not
available. We had no way to deter
mine the level of homogeneity for
the sample because variance esti
mates were not given.
Analysis. O ur goal was to create
perceptual maps showing the rela
tive positions of the various brands
against each other and to examine
any movement in a brands position
during the three years, as viewed by
the business travel managers and
agents. We analyzed the relative
positions of the ten most-used
Corporate discount programs
brands in each tier in the data pub
lished in 1990 and then compared
those brands positions in 1991 and
1992. Each analysis was conducted
for 30 hotel brands (10 chains for
each of three years in each market
segment). We also analyzed the po
sitions of the top two brands in each
of the five tiers over the three years
(another 30-brand analysis). In
making the perceptual maps, how
ever, we excluded the luxury tier
due to an insufficient num ber of
respondents.
The outcome of our analysis was
perceptual maps that revealed how
each brand was positioned relative
to its competitors and how each
brands position changed over the
three years we studied. O ur goal
was more than simple description,
however. We wanted to test statisti
cally the changes in market position
over time to determine the extent
to which brands occupy the same
perceptual space.
We applied probabilistic multidi
mensional scaling (MDS) algorithms
to derive the coordinates for the
perceptual map.18 Multidimensional
scaling is a m ethod of calculating
similarities between objects on a set
of attributes. The calculations result
in coordinates that can be plotted
on coordinate axes to form a map.
The distances thus calculated give
an indication of the extent to which
the respondents view brands as
similar.
18 See: J.O. Ramsay, Some Statistical Approaches
to Multidimensional Scaling,'Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series A,Vol. 145 (1982), pp.
285-312; and M.L. Davison, Multidimensional
Scaling (New York: John W iley & Sons, 1983).
 Exhibit 2
Relative market positions (this study):
Upscale tier, 1990
We obtained the MDS algo
rithms from the com puter program
Multiscale, described in the box
on page 55.The algorithms found
in Multiscale require that some sort
of distance m atrix be applied. We
used a dissimilarities matrix, created
using the following Euclidean dis
tance metric:
P ences derived from more objective
<V= ^ <W 2 measures.19
k=1
for chains i, j, and attributes k=1
The distances d were then repre
sented to the best extent possible on
a two-dimensional map.
Positions of the firms or brands
on the perceptual map can assist
managers in identifying potential
competitive threats and opportuni
ties. The coordinates of a brands
location on X and Y axes reflect
underlying composites of attitudes
toward the brands among the survey
respondents. It is im portant to bear
in mind that the distances are in
psychological space, measured in
terms of customer perceptions and
preferences rather than on differ
It is also im portant to note that
the position maps are essentially
p
value-neutral. That is, one spot on
the map does not inherently have to
be better or worse than another,
19 The significance o f psychological positioning
is explored in: George Overstreet, Creating
Value in Oversupplied Markets: The Case of
Charlottesville, Virginia, Hotels, Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 34,
No. 5 (October 1993), pp. 84-91.
except if a chain intends to be one
place (with one particular com peti
tive set) and finds itself at some
other place. Perceptual maps can
indicate how close one s brand is
to competing brands. Brands that
are positioned relatively far away
from each other on the map are
interpreted to be less directly com
petitive, while hotel chains that have
nearby coordinates are considered to
be strongly competitive with each
other. The map also can identify
open space, which is interpreted to
be an available market niche either
for repositioning existing operations
or for a new entrant.
A frequent complaint about
MDS is that the plotted points and
distances are derived purely
algorithmically, w ithout respect to
the probability distribution of errors
 Exhibit 3
Relative market position (this study):
Upscale tier, 1991
in the space. We have applied an
algorithm that conducts statistical
tests of significance to ensure the
points are, in fact, different. Such a
test alleviates the concerns raised by
the following questions. If the dis
tance between two points cannot be
perfectly reflected in a reduced two-
dimensional M DS map, how is the
error distributed? Moreover, how
can one tell w hether two points are
really different from one another in
a statistically significant way? Even
points that look different may con
tain random error that makes them,
in reality, not different.
Because we have the ability to
test for the significance of differ
ences between points on the per
ceptual map, we can determine
which chains have positions that are
at significant distances from each
j
Meridien
other. We can also tell whether a
movement by a brand from year to
year is significant. The benefit of
using probabilistic scaling is that it
allows one to focus only on position
differences that are statistically sig
nificant. Such an approach clears
much of the clutter surrounding
position differences.
The outcome of the calculations
is a set of points on a map. The lo
cation of each hotel brand is de
picted according to how customers
perceive them on the attribute
dimensions in the graph in Exhibit
1. Although the brands are arrayed
on coordinate axes, their positions
in relation to the axes (and at
tributes) themselves are less im por
tant than their positions in relation
to one another or the change in a
brands own position from one year
to another. Changes in perceptual
distances experienced by a brand
over time that are statistically signifi
cant we term direction, while
changes that involve m otion that is
not statistically significant we term
drift.
Cartography
Statistical tests allow us to examine
whether the points on the coordi
nate axes shown in Exhibit 2 are at a
significant distance from each other.
(Note that Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 can
be overlayed on Exhibit 1.) The
differences shown in two dimen
sions may actually be larger in three
dimensions. The circles drawn
around the points on this map de
pict clusters of points that are not at
statistically significant distances from
each other. So, for example, the
 Exhibit 4
Relative market position (this study):
Upscale tier, 1992
map of the 1990 data (collected in
1989) makes it appear that Stouffers
position was considerably different
from that of M eridien.The statistical
tests showed otherwise, as indicated
by the circle around those two
chains. Likewise, there was no sig
nificant difference in the perceived
positions of W yndham and M eri
diem However, the distance between
Wyndham and Stouffer is significant.
Viewed another way, the busi-
ness-travel managers and travel
agents in the 1990 survey viewed
Hilton, Radisson, and Sheraton as
competitive brands whose essential
positions were not particularly dis
tinct from one another. Hyatt, M ar
riott, and Westin form ed another
competitive group, with a position
significantly different from that of
Hilton, Radisson, and Sheraton, but
not from each other. This map pro
vides a baseline against which to
compare the other two.
Changes com ing. The 1991
data (collected in 1990) may reflect
the results of the severe recession
that began in 1990. This map (Ex
hibit 3) allows two levels of analysis.
First, we can once again compare
the chains relative positions against
each other. We can also compare the
positions of each chain in 1991 with
its 1990 position. Indeed, there was
considerable movement in managers
and agents perceptions of the
chains positions. For instance, M ar
riott has m oved out of its form er
competitive group with Hyatt and
Westin to be more competitive with
Hilton and Sheraton. It is interesting
that none of those other four chains
moved substantially from 1990 to
1991. The movement of M eridien
and W yndham was substantial.
1992 . The data published in 1992
record the positions hotel brands
held in the nightmare year of 1991,
when it appeared that the industry
Wyndham
Hotels
would never recover from the effects
of war, overbuilding, and recession
(Exhibit 4). Ironically, the com peti
tive clusters found in the 1992 data
are similar to those in the baseline
1990 chart (Exhibit 2). Hilton, Wes
tin, Sheraton, and Hyatt, remain
fairly consistent. M arriott has moved
substantially but is again viewed as
competitive with Hyatt, albeit not
with Westin. Likewise, Radisson is
once again viewed as competitive
with Sheraton and Hilton.
Chain Movement
The perceptual maps give us an idea
of how individual brands did or did
not attempt to change customers
perceptions of their positions. The
maps capture the movement of indi
vidual brands from year to year
based on customers perceptions of
differences among the chains, which
the attribute arrows help to illus
trate. The decisions the companies
make to emphasize one or another
discriminating dimension shifts
their position in the minds of their
customers.
In the 1990 map, Stouffer is on
par with Inter-Continental on price
and product quality, but in 1991,
customers price-value perception of
Stouffer moved it away from Inter
Continentals competitive set, a
movement that reversed in 1992
following considerable advertising,
Basic points of probabilistic multidimensional scaling (Multiscale)
(1) Points are located in Euclidean space based on variable ratings (in this case
based on perceptions of product attributes), and fitted to a two-dimensional perceptual
map. Interpoint distances are calculated.
(2) The differences between true and fitted interpoint distances (errors) are compared
using statistical tests of whether those distances are due to random chance or whether
they are statistically significant.
(3) All distances are considered positive (absolute value). Statistical tests are based
on the assumption that variables have a normal (log-normal) distribution, as depicted in
the curve below.
(4) Any extreme values (outliers) must be transformed. Before applying a Multiscale
fitting to these distances, the outliers must be smoothed out so that the final graph

acquisitions, and product upgrades. shows a more log-normal distribution.

M arriott moved downward on the
cost scale between 1990 and 1991.
The chain responded to the hotel
industrys recession (and its own
real-estate-driven difficulties) by
emphasizing the economic dim en
sion particularly its incentive pro
grams. As examples, M arriott beefed
up its frequent-guest and corporate-
discount programs and courted
travel agents and managers by guar
anteeing commission payments in 30
days. By 1992 that focus was soft
ened and the chain moved to com
pete more with Hyatt and less with
Hilton and Sheraton. For its part,
Hyatt maintained a fairly consistent
position during the entire period.
Managerial Implications
Managers should m onitor the impli
cations of their marketing strategies.
They need to examine the attributes
that customers use to differentiate
one hotel brand from another,
checking the dimensions on which
that position is based for both their
own brand and their competitors.
Ratings such as those by Business
Travel News can give marketing
managers an indication of the effec
tiveness over time of the brands
marketing strategies in positioning
against the competition.
Such an approach will prevent
hoteliers from making the mistake of
presuming a competitive set based
only on physical attributes. Two
similar-appearing hotels may or may
not actually compete directly against
(5) Finally, z-tests are applied to interpoint distances, testing whether those distances
are significant at the p<.05 level. M.S.M.
each other, and all upscale hotels are
not necessarily part of a given com
petitive set. By developing a percep
tual map, marketing managers can
determ ine which brands are actually
in the competitive set.
M ore important, by maintaining
the perceptual map over time, man
agers can assess whether changes in
the brands marketing strategies are
causing the hotels position to
change. Changes in position should
be intentional and not accidental,
lest a brand find itself competing in
a set that puts it at a disadvantage.
O n the other hand, intentional
changes in the competitive set can
make sense. M arriott s $49-room
program, for instance, substantially
changed its position on the 1991
map, compared to 1990 and 1992.
For that time, the brand moved out
of one competitive group and into
another one. O ur data set does not
give an indication of intention, but
we may infer that M arriotts move
was a deliberate strategy.
W hile the technique in this ex
ample is based on historical data, the
lessons of how a hotels position
moves as a result of operating or
marketing changes intentional or
unintentional can be used for fu
ture strategic planning. In 1992
Ramada launched an advertising
campaign with the following posi
tioning statement: Ram adas in,
Holidays out. Ram adas president
Stephen Belmonte explained the
strategy as one of positioning R a
mada close to Holiday Inn in the
customers mind, or, in other words,
to position Ramada with Holiday in
the customers consideration set.20
The strategy was chosen, Belmonte
said, because Ramada was a sleepy
and stagnant company with an
identity crisis, and was falling out
of favor as a mid-market brand.21
According to Scott Deaver,
Ram adas vice president of market
ing, the objective of the campaign
was for Ramada to be part of a
competitive pair with Holiday in
the same way that R eebok and
Nike, Burger King and M cDonalds,
or M CI and AT&T are competitive
pairs. In commenting on the results
of the campaign, Deaver noted that
there was no way of knowing
w hether the campaign achieved its
objective of having Ramada consid
ered with Holiday.22 Using the tech
nique presented in this article, how
ever, would help determine whether
that objective was achieved. CQ
20 Aaker, pp. 56-62; also see: Michael S.
Morgan, Travelers Choice: The Effects of
Advertising and Prior Stay, Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 4
(December 1991), pp. 40-49.
21 Phillip Swann, Raging Belmonte, Lodging,
Vol. 70, No. 10 (June 1992), pp. 28-29.
22Jim Galb, Taking off the Gloves, A ST A
Agency Management, August 1993, p. 95.